On Sun, Nov 17, 2024 at 12:48:14PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 at 07:44, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 06:37:18AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 at 15:20, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 09:03:35AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Tom, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 at 19:40, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 08:23:49AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > It has become more common to use config fragments to extend or > > > > > > > adjust > > > > > > > the functionality of boards in U-Boot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Propose a format for how to deal with this. It is not implemented > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that the first problem is that this patch series is an > > > > > > inappropriate method and place to start the discussion. > > > > > > > > > > We had a discussion a year ago but it trailed off. > > > > > > > > OK. Still an inappropriate place to resurrect it. > > > > > > What do you suggest? I am trying to solve the problem, not just talk > > > about it, so patches are often best for that. > > > > Well, in that there's a problem to be solved, it's that buildman makes > > #include more painful that it should be to use. > > > > Or, we validate config fragments by building them. A requires-buildman > > solution is not appropriate. That: > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241114115049.2070780-2-patrick.rudo...@9elements.com/ > > doesn't use the acpi.config fragment is because of the parsing issue > > buildman has. > > > > > > > > I also think this gets things backwards as the common case is > > > > > > "make", > > > > > > not "buildman". We need more defconfig's that are just base + > > > > > > fragment(s) if they're important enough to be a combination that > > > > > > needs > > > > > > to be tested and work. A board is not a time-expensive part of CI. A > > > > > > pytest run is, a new job itself is. > > > > > > > > > > OK, that would work too. It would also avoid the problem of > > > > > combinatorial > > > > > explosion. But I am not seeing people actually doing that, with rare > > > > > exceptions. > > > > > > > > I think it's the exception, not the rule, where config fragments are not > > > > being put to use in a defconfig. And that's possibly because not a lot > > > > of people seem to know about the #include option, and then when I > > > > explain it exists to people the next problem is "Oh, I have to do what > > > > so that buildman also works?". > > > > > > Are you looking for any feature in Buildman for this? This series is > > > intended to fix [1] > > > > Yes, the part of this series that, if I read it right, causes buildman > > to read the preprocessed config file, rather than the raw defconfig, is > > what should fix that, as the final patch in the series confirmed. > > Are you saying you want a validation solution that doesn't use > buildman. If so, why? CI relies entirely on buildman for building > things.
Because (a) fragments should be used as a general rule and (b) it will introduce a new failure mode for new platforms, platform added with fragments, whatever-table not updated. > The first 7 patches of this series resolve an issue that you filed. > Above you say 'because of the parsing issue that buildman has'. > So...should we fix it? Yes, patches 1-7 are good and I'm leaning towards picking them up for -next soon. They haven't quite had the general 2 week waiting period for others to comment on. > I don't like having fragments in the tree where we don't (at least > programmatically) know what board they relate to. At least I think it > should be an error to add a fragment with no in-tree defconfig users. Fragments don't have specific relationships to boards. That's what I keep saying. And we *intentionall* have fragments without in-tree defconfig users too, as I spelled out in another part of this thread. > In any case, I think the file format I have come up with is somewhat > reasonable. My main concern with it is that it might greatly increase > the CI load. Yes, but I don't want the thing you're proposing and don't think it will have value and that it will make life harder not easier because of introducing a new CI-only failure mode for submissions. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
